I think he did something unnecessary due to personal experience and good intentions. I wouldn’t call that particularly ‘wrong’, because it was based on knowledge at the time.
If it was today, and he had more information about what caused his own conditions, I’d hope he’d make a different decision and wait to see if the son was going to have these problems before taking such an extreme measure.
Catsix All I have called you is ignorant
According to my Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary
Ignorant- 1 Lacking or a displaying a lack of education or knowledge.
2 Not aware: uninformed
You have displayed a lack of education or knowledge about Judaism. I do not feelt that saying you are ignorant of a particular subject is in itself an insult. A woman at the Central PA fest asked if I was Hebrew. I explained that Hebrew was a language, but that I was Jewish. She became rather embarrased. I explained that she had no reason to feel embarassed. The seder, the passover ritual meal, includes a parable of four sons. One is the wise son. He demonstrates his wisdom by asking ‘What does all this mean?’. He is not wise because he has knowledge. He is wise because he acknowledges that he has ignorance and seeks to learn.
You have said several times that 'They can practice their religion without circumcision'. This is a demonstration of ignorance- that you lack education and knowledge of Judaism.
I have called you thickheaded.
This simply means that you are stubborn and will not listen to the arguments of others. I based this opinion on the fact that you seem to ignore posts explaining the importance of Circumcision in Judaism.
By contrast, it was my understanding that mohels used no anasthetic of any kind. Joel Shulson (I linked to his site earlier), mentioned attending a conference in which a large organization of rabbis and mohels decided that anasthetic was not prohibited unless it posed a danger to the baby. This allows the use of topical anasthetic. Which means that my earlier statements about general anasthesia were correct, but my statements of not using any anasthetic were wrong.
Your opinions on whether Jews are mentally ill due to our feelings about circumcison, are your opinions.
Your statements that Judaism would be unaffected if we gave up circumcision are demonstrably false. You were wrong. You refuse to admit that you were wrong. That behavior is the essence of being thick headed.
Yosemite
#1 Your punctuation is missing. It should be Yo, semite!
#2 Just which semite in the thread are you trying to get the attention of?
Eva Luna
As I understand it, such cases are rare. I also wonder how much it would help since Soviet Jews had their nationality listed as Jewish on all their papers.
Aldeberan
Obviously, you know vastly more about Islam than I do. But, isn’t there a Hadith in which a man tells Mohammed(peace be upon him) “I’ve converted!” and he responds “Good. Now go cut off your hair and get yourself circumcised.”
Also, can you provide cites that FGM is not commanded by the Sunna? I’ve heard many times that this was the case, and it makes sense (Off the top of my head, Sunna includes- plucking the hair under the arms, trimming the pubic hair, circumcision, and two more things that I can’t remember. Male circumsion would seem to fit with the other commands in making the body cleaner and easier to keep clean. But female circumcision doesn’t, to me anyway, seem to serve such a purpose). It is not that I don’t believe you. I want to read the cites and know them so that I can make and defend that argument when you’re not present.
Re Zev
Outside of the show Lexx, I’ve only heard Zev as a man’s name.
I think that Jews or anyone else who wants to circumcise a kid who has no choice simply because it’s in a very old book (and let’s face it, that’s all that can be proven) are wrong to do so. I’ve already said that if an adult wants to have himself circumcised as a show of his faith, I have nothing against that. What I do have a problem with is marking someone else’s body with your faith.
I have not called you or anyone else mentally ill, however, your deliberate mischaracterizations of me have demonstrated that you have no interest in a serious discussion.
So, because they are for what you are against, their either lying, or the case histories they present are imagined? And no, I don’t agree that newborns have fewer senses for pain. Though in my experience, with my own son, he didn’t make a peep during the procedure. Not until that first pee into the diaper, and then only until I removed the diaper, the very second the diaper was off, instant silence, and nothing at all after that through the care of it.
Again, the fact that this person is pro doesn’t change his presentation of case histories of harm having come to those with foreskin diseases.
A risk doesn’t mean the ONLY risk.
I did read it, and also noted that they’d revised it from the 1975 statement regarding it’s NOT needing to be done.
bolding mine
Key words there. " I think". That’s YOUR opinion. IANAD, but I am a parent. And as I said, the benefits to us, outweighed the tiny chance of risk. And again, that was 14 years ago, not too long after the AAP had revised their 1975 position on it.
Were I faced with having a baby boy today? I would do a LOT more research, and not just at the skimpy online websites, and would possibly come to a different decision. However, I would STILL maintain that parents have that right, until it’s legally taken away. And that it’s JUST as valid a choice as non-circumcision.
Quote:
CanvasShoes said:
If you are a newborn anything, boy, girl, white, black, rich or poor, you will have been born into circumstances NOT of your choosing, and are pretty much SOL regarding your own choices until you’re 18 anyway.
Wrong. My whole point was that NONE of what is chosen for us as kids is “easily avoidable” or avoidable at all, in any way, whether physical, mental, lifestyle and so on, and that neither is the FACT that some or many of thosen things are ones we won’t agree with and more OR less than that of having been circumcised. That of things that parents choose for us. ALL have the potential to be something we did NOT choose for our lives, and which will have negative longlasting, or permanent consequences in our lives.
For instance, as many dopers in other threads have described, the religion that was chosen FOR them by their parents and in which they were raised, has caused many people agonizing YEARS of guilt, coming to terms with, etc before they either realized they were agnostic or atheist, or changed faiths, or what have you.
That is not any more easily avoided than having a circumcision. And in many cases, fanatical religion (and as a christian, I think I abhor those people MORE than atheists do), can caues much death, injury and destruction of human life and psyche. David Koresh? I’ll bet those kids didn’t choose to burned to death for their faith.
And scores of other choices parents make for their kids both small and large that aren’t life threatening, or negative, but nonetheless can still have long term effects on the kid, WITHOUT his permission.
I think, catsix, even I must say something at this point. If I understand Zev_Steinhardt and **DocCathode ** correctly, the Bris is more than marking the parents’ faith on the child - rather, it has far more meaning than this. It symbolises the moment at which the child becomes part of a vast extended family. Yes, it has to do with faith, surely, but it has much to do also with a way of looking at the world, of interacting with the world, of being.
When I was learning languages, I learned that the language you think in, and speak in, determines how you see the world. This is so fundamental that it may be impossible to express a concept in another language, particularly when there are also cultural differences involved (see the thread about untranslatable words and phrases for an illustration).
I suspect you’re seeing Judaism as being a faith, meaning, merely a set of religious beliefs. I don’t think that’s an adequate explanation. It’s that, plus a culture, plus a way of looking at the world, plus a language, plus a vast history involving huge amounts of persecution. I think Zev made an eloquent explanation of this. Judaism is a state of being. The circumcision marks one’s belonging. If the child is not cut, the child does not belong. How could any parent desire their child not to belong? Particularly with the weight of everything else that is involved?
As a matter of fact, I still don’t quite grok this. I mean, I can’t feel it at an intuitive level. But I can understand it a little anyway. I think. But then, I have nothing like that in my life. I have nothing tying me to any group in any ritual, emotional, or any other significant way. And this by the way is something I do miss about church. 
Not enough to go back, but I still miss it.
Really? What about this-
So claiming that I have a “Fucked up obsession” is not a statement about my mental health? And saying that to hold the views on circumcision that I do is “fucked up” isn’t a statement about my mental health?
Saying I have a 'driving psychological need to chop parts off of penises" and that this means I have a “problem” isn’t a statement about my mental health?
Ummm…
Asking “What the hell went wrong in [my] brain?” Isn’t a claim that I am mentally ill?
Deliberate mischaracterizations? If you weren’t calling me mentally ill in the above posts, what exactly were you saying?
Well, since you’re sulking about it. 
I thought your analogy was a pretty good one. And being a parent myself, and having had a parent that sent ME through all kinds of dental hell when I was little, I think it’s a valid one. Especially regarding things parents chooe for their children that might hurt some momentarily, but which are chosen for the greater good of their children.
Unfortunately, the batshit insane in this thread are blind, and “hearing” posts while having their fingers stuffed in their ears and singing “lalalalalalaaaa”.
I think Excalibre’s post regarding (paraphrased) “YOU MUST BELIEVE THE WAY WE ANTI-CIRCS BELIEVE…” said it best.
Most men don’t have to “switch to jackhammer mode” to get off. At least not any I’ve been with. One, my ex-husband, was uncut, my other boyfriends were all cut. NONE of them had to jackhammer to get off.
And my ex-husband never had multiple orgasms or extra special sensations, or anything else. The difference between sex with cut, and sex with the uncut (thought granted I only had one), in EXTREME contrast to JDT’s claims of ecstasy for the woman, was pain and discomfort while having intercourse with my uncut ex-husband.
One of the posters (sorry I forgot who), on the first page DID post a cite which stated that 90% of Korean men get cut in their teens or 20s. Twould be one way to test for sexual pleasure and intensity differences.
Also, what about those medical devices they hook up to measure sexual arousal and so on? Seems as if there would be a way to hook up a control group, a cut group and an uncut group?? IANA scientist, so not sure if that’s feasible or not, but I’ve sure seen it used in other cases, like child molesters.
And for this to hold any water at all you’d have to point out where I argued that people have the right to drag their kids into a firefight with the BATF.
Good luck.
Yet it’s still all about the parent and not the kid. Parents want it, so the kid gets chopped. The person whose body is being altered should be the one deciding to get it altered. Got it?
Which should be left up to each individual person to decide if they want to belong in such a manner as requires cutting off part of their body.
You have one belief that I consider ‘fucked up’ and ‘obsessive’ merely because you said you’d do it even if it were illegal. I don’t think that makes you mentally ill any more than any other person who believes steadfastly in the appropriateness of something that cannot possibly be proven.
You pretty much said you had that need. I think it’s problematic that you do, considering you specifically said that you would do it even if it were illegal.
If I’d meant to ask if you were mentally ill, I’d have started asking you about psychiatric hospitalizations. I think there is something wrong with engraving your beliefs in someone else’s skin. You, apparently, do not. The most you’ll say is that it’s ‘central to your faith’ or that the book tells you to.
So, why do you know that the book is right, and why is it so damned important?
Was the word “hysterical” required?
What I am trying to exactly?
What I’ve no problem with is banning harmful practices whether or not they’re religious. Can you explain to me why a practice cease to be harmful when it’s done in the name of religion? And if it isn’t less harmful when done in the name of religion, for what reason exactly should it then make any difference?
Why should it matter? When I read the thread, you were discussing about the religious side of the issue.
“insane”, “hysterical”. You seem to like insulting people. You think it somehow makes your arguments more valid?
That’s precisely what I have an issue with. Why should it be given an exception??? If it’s banned, one would assume that there would be a good reason for it. If there’s a good reason, why should people exempted because it’s their “religion”. Why exactly, in a country which isn’t a theocracy, religious people should have special rights denied to others?
Secondly, why only for when religion is involved? If I’ve strong philosophical, or cultural or political, rather than religious feelings about something which is forbidden by law, can you give me good reson why it shouldn’t similarily result in the law I disagree with not applying to me?
They indeed don’t need it. Only some medical conditions result in people needing to be circumcised. They want it to be done on their children. And it’s obviously relevant to the debate about circumcision.
Stop mispresenting my arguments. I’ve no issue with people practising their religion. I’ve an issue with two things :
-Granting special rights to people on the basis that they’re are religious
-And “practising” their religion on the body of other people.
As for my syntax, we can try in french, my syntax will certainly be way better. What was your point in mentionning it, exactly?
I think it’s unecessary and can be harmful. Though rare, there might be complication to this basic surgery. It sometimes has harmful result (like the painful erection mentionned before), and it’s unclear whether it has no consequences on sexual pleasure. Given that, and since there’s no need to practice it, I think it shouldn’t be done. If people weren’t used to it, and if it wasn’t a custom, do you actually think that anybody would consider removing the foreskin of newborns? That any surgeon would accept to do it? Why take a risk, even a small one, if the procedure doesn’t have a medical benefit?
But indeed, it’s not really what I’m arguing about. I’m arguing against the fact that it being a religious practice should make a difference, or worst, that people belonging to a given religion could be allowed to do something which would be forbidden to other citizens.
Nope. Once again , it’s either bad or not. The fact that it’s a religious practice doesn’t make it any better or any worse.
You should realize, that you are the one believing that something becomes somehow more acceptable if it’s grounded in religion. I’m the one arguing that it doesn’t make any difference. I’m neutral regarding religion, while you’re positively biased. But you obviously have an issue with not giving some special consideration to religious beliefs, or not granting special rights to religious people, and aparently believe that not granting these special rights, or treating equally all citizens regardless of their religion is “opressive”.
Are you going to argue that the kid doesn’t bear the mark of the circumcision?
[quote]
And the kid doesn’t consent to that marking.
[/quote)
And would you argue that he does?
Nope. My goal is actually to contest a well too common attitude that you happen to be displaying. The idea that religion deserves some special consideration, and that a particular religious belief can give some people particular rights other people don’t have. This concept is way too ingrained in the mind of way too much people for my taste. It seems “natural” to many people, while for instance, they wouldn’t for an instant consider granting special rights, to say, hardcore communist people just because these people feel very strongly about certain things.
And I contest too the perception, also way too comon, that refusing to give such special consideration and rights to religion and religious people is “oppressive”, or, as it has been written in a previous post is akin to enforcing “state-mandated atheism”.
My reply didn’t confuse anything, since I never refered to pleasure or sensation in this thread.
Apart from that “it hasn’t been shown to affect the pleasure” isn’t a good reason to undertake surgery. It hasn’t been shown that cutting the little left toe affect walking, either. It hasn’t been shown that cutting a bit of the ear affect hearing. On this basis, we could could cut various little bits of skin or flesh on babies. Why don’t we? If I asked to have some random bit of skin on my baby, would it be enough to say “it hasn’t be shown that it has negative consequences” to convince the surgeon? I somehow doubt it.
If the effect is minor, it would be unexisting without circumcision. So, once again, why undertaking a surgery which has only “minor drawbacks” and serve no medical purpose?
And this very very small number would be exactly zero without circumcision. Why undertaking a surgery without medical purpose which has negatiuve consequences on some people?
Circumcision being unecessary, in the doubt, why should we practising it?
Besides, if we were talking about female genital mutilation, how do you think would be perceived a statement like " a group of chicks blames a bad sex life…etc…"
Indeed, it’s not my point. There are more serious concerns than circumcision.
Nope. I’m not saying that circumcision should be banned because it’s a religious practice. What i’m stating is that the religious-driven wish of parents of leaving a permanent mark on their children body isn’t a valid reason to allow circumcision if otherwise it should be banned.
I don’t need to. Even if it’s not bad, my argument still stands : religious beliefs shouldn’t have any bearing on the issue.
That’s likely. But in what does it show that my reasonning that religious belief shouldn’t give a free pass regarding a medical issue is unsound?
Anyway, what I disliked in this part of your argumentation is that you stated that “the right to practice one’s religion” include the right to practice it on someone else. You didn’t make any difference between the practice chosen by an individual, and the practice enforced on him in a permanent way.
How many sentence can you write before feeling the need to call people names?
Apart from that “it’s not” isn’t extremely convincing. I state that cutting other bits of skin, the left little toe, a bit of the right ear and adding some scarifications to boot isn’t harmful, hence that I should be allowed to have all these things done on my children if I want to. Seems exactly as convincing.
Yes. the law is always perfect and never need to be changed, as everybody knows. “It doesn’t hurt anyone” except the “very very small number” of people who have hurtful erections, the “very very small number” of people complaining about negative consequences on their sex life, (sorry…blaming their own failures on circumcision, according to you), “the very very small number” of people who had a botched circumcision (including cases resulting in amputation of the penis, as quoted in an older thread).
Of course, it could be avoided by not doing anything, but who cares? You’ve a decided that it’s not harmful (except in some cases, but it doesn’t matter, apparently). “harmful only for a minority and at least not for me” is apparently a good enough reason to undertake a surgery devoid of any benefit.
I’m still not convinced. Animals aren’t human beings, and people feel much stronger about things done on children than on poultry or sheeps. I still doubt my religiously-based ear or left little toe cutting on babies would be Okeyed by the courts and by the public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur
Do you notice that these two points are in contradiction with each other? If no one really knows, how could you know if it interferes or not. Anyway, I’m circumcized, so I don’t need any explanation.
Then, if sensation can be lessened abut that (according to you, I assume you’re basing your statement on a serious study of the issue), why not just avoid the problem by not creating it at the first place?
By the way, I can easily imagine someone stating the same kind of things about female genital mutilations, once again. “The women pleasure may be lessened, but their brain …blahblahblah…”
Actually I believe it is. Common experience is that some people enjoy much more eating than some others. Anyway, do you mean that if I wanted to have something done on my baby which would reduce his sense of taste, you wouldn’t have any issue with this? You can reply by yes or no, and if the answer is “no”, then explain to me why it is different.
But I would point out that you totally avoided to answer to my point, and instead went on discussing totally irrelevant concepts. In case you wouldn’t remember, in the part of my post you were quoting, I wans’t discussing about the abilities of the brain or the enjoyment of food, but asked you how you could in two consecutives sentences :
2)Mention that there’s no difference, hence that circumcision isn’t an issue.
“No one gives a grap whether you think the contrary” seems to be the most logical answer. Now, we could say the same about my opinion regarding circumcision and yours, so why exactly are we posting our opinions about anything on a message board?
By “for me” I meant “in my opinion”
Only in your imagination. I only refuse that special rights would be granted to religious people, or that religious beliefs should be taken into account in a medical issue.
You’re good at building strawmen. Could you answer to my posts, rather than let your imagination run wild?
A lot of imagination, indeed… I thought we were arguing about circumcision or something like that…
You’re close, but you still didn’t call me antisemit…Your understatement is clear enough, though…
Unfortunately for you, I don’t care about it being a Jewish practice. I care about people thinking that a religious belief is a valid argument in a debate about a medical procedure. Incase it wouldn’t be clear.
You know, it’s not because something has to do with Judaism that it immediatly becomes unthinkable to criticize it.
But go ahead and picture me as antisemitic. Apparently it makes you happy to think that people can only disagree with you because they’re hysterical, or crazy, or oppressive, or antisemitic, etc…
Tottally different debate. Yes, it is a religious issue. If Jews weren’t Jews there would never have been a state of Israel at the first place. If palestinians were Jews, there wouldn’t be occupied territories. If there weren’t extremist thinking that a piece of land was granted to them some thousand years ago by a god, they wouldn’t build illegal (even according to Israel) settlements to reclaim this land. If there weren’t muslim extremist, nobody would plant bombs in buses, and so on…
Anyway, what does it have to do with the issue at hand? Do you want us to argue also butterflies sexual practices or such similarily relevant issue?
Well…If you thought they were right, you would be religious
Then , how do you decide whether something is right or wrong? You organize an opinion poll?
Anyway, I can’t see how something can be “wrong” on the basis of anything else than morals.
I agree that it doesn’t seem to do much harm (but it do some harm), but I fail to see why eliminating it would do would do a lot of harm. I assume you mean that it would upset some religious folks. But since from my point of view, whether the parents are upset or not shouldn’t be taken in consideration, because the person circumcized, once again, isn’t the parent.
And aren’t these people thinking they have a moral authority (actually that they’re mandated by a god) to make other’s people (the babies, once again) decision? Personnally, I’m in favor of not taking a decision for someone else. In this case, not circumcizing babies who didn’t ask to be circumcized.
So, now, “trying to convince people” is oppressive? You’ve been opressing me a lot in this thread. Would be trying to convince people to ban a practice which is not religious (say, ban drugs) less oppressive? Once again, what is it which makes religious practices and beliefs so special that merely arguing against them becomes “oppressive”. Honestly, I thing you’re the person who would want to oppress the others, since you apparently think that there things which shouldn’t ever be criticized. You don’t seem to realize that you’re actually supporting, once again, a special status for religions and religious folks. Some ideas are “more equal” than others, apparently…
Besides, I’m not trying to convince people to ban circumcision. I don’t care enough about this issue. But I care a big deal about attitude such as “religion should never be argued against” , “religious practices should never be questionned”, “religious beliefs should get you a “get out of jail” card”, and finally “religious beliefs or opinions are so special that merely criticizing them is oppressive”.
Let’s forget about your name-calling, once again…
Thanks, I’m aware it is. But you’re the one stating above “I had taken it as a given that [circumcision] if outlawed, would be given an exception for the case of a religious belief”. That’s what I’ve an issue with, and these are your words nor catsix’s. Your taking “as a given” that religious folks should have special rights. That’s what upset me. Especially the “as a given” part, since it shows how natural it is to some people to accept that religion has a special status and as a result, calling “oppressive” people arguing that there’s no reason to assume such special exemptions as long as we’re not living in a theocracy.
I would most probably never had posted in this thread if I had not read arguments to the effect that “since it’s written in our sacred book, it must be allowed”, and this statement seemingly being accepted with without a second thought by essentially all the posters.
I wouldn’t know what they they came up with, but as long as there weren’t any alternative procedure, kids are going to be transfused, even if it upset the parents. There a difference of scale, not of nature, between the two issues.
As for the “tarot reading” part, your competences or knowledge don’t make your unrelated beliefs any less superstitious. Newton had a lot of interest in astrology, and being a brain surgeon doesn’t make you any less superstitious if you fear the number “13”. As shown in this very thread (the V° century Wisigoth silly ritual) , people don’t have mush issue with not taking seriously religious beliefs which aren’t contemporary and mainstream, let alone non-religious beliefs, which, for some reason, don’t deserve these “special status” you’re taking “as a given”
Since, it’s becoming vey long and boring, I’m going to stop responding now. I assume that everything which could be said have been said several times…
Oh sorry, a last little thing I’m noticing while deleting the end of the post :
Do you have proofs that it will cause problems?
Then, can I have this little toe being cut as long as you don’t prove it’s harmful?
What are your evidences that’ it’s likely to hurt the person? Be serious (or consistent)…you can’t really want to ban it without “proving why?”. Of course, the harm must be serious, not only for a “small number” of toeless people, and the brain must not be able to compensate it, or else it doesn’t matter.
That’s an EXCELLENT final point, because it’s precisely what I’m arguing since the beginning, and the reason why I posted in this thread
No judgment based on the legitimacy of religion, indeed, just on, the harm caused by the practice. That’s EXACTLY what I’m saying. But you don’t seem to perceive that by accepting the practice because it is religious in nature, you’re precisely refusing to judge it only on the basis of the harm caused, and you’re taking into account the legitimacy of religious beliefs.
In your mind, obviously, it’s a one-way principle : to be aplied if it isn’t at stakes with religious customs, to be ignored if it is.
There’s no difference. But it doesn’t mean that they’re right, nor that there’s no point in trying to convince people that an unecessary surgical procedure withtout health benefit and with possible adverse consequences (like any surgery) should be avoided. People do plenty of bad things with good intentions. Or with no intention at all, just because it’s the way it’s done (at least the way it’s done in the US, since here, people are only circumcized for religious reasons, or because it’s actually medically necessary. I’m not sure if there’s any other country besides the US where circumcision is routinely practised. Canada, perhaps?).
That would be because the right to the free and unobstructed practice of religion is in the First Amendment.
How do I know the Torah is right? G-d tells me so. By that I do not mean ‘It is G-d’s word because it says that it is G-d’s word’. I mean that when I have speak to G-d directly, He tells me so. I’ve also been told that some passages are mistranslated, misunderstood, or were inserted by humans acting on their own.
By ‘it’ do you mean the Torah or circumcision? The Torah is the history of our people and contains the the laws by which we live.
Circumcision is the ritual through which a boy becomes one of ‘our people’. It connects him to our history, to the many Jews around the world in our present, and signifies that he is a part of our future.
It fulfills a command given to the very first Jew.
Yikes! Couldn’t get back here for a day or two and now I’m not sure where the discussion is at. I’m probably going to bow out of this one now, but I would like to say thanks to those who have argued with me, but at the same time remained calm; you’ve given me food for thought and probably softened my stance a bit.
Seems like the whole thing is about where we draw lines and in any discussion like this, analogies abound; trouble is that analogies are always inexact and this opens up the way for arguments that, since the analogous situation isn’t exactly the same, it doesn’t deserve exactly the same consideration or treatment.
The arguments also seem to centre very much around an evaluation of harm versus benefit, judgments about which tend to be subjective and are often fuelled by emotion.
It would probably be too much of an oversimplification to say (and yet I shall say it anyway) that the opposing arguments in the debate seem to be:
As someone who has been arguing from the latter, may I just at this point admit that if circumcision does inhabit the second category, it would be fair to say that it must be well toward the less severe end of the scale.
Is there anyone among those in the former camp that will meet me halfway and say that, although they believe it entirely acceptable, that it is toward the more severe end of their scale?
Well, that’s a reasonable response, and I thank you.
Uh, I think my grandrather knew what the “health benefit” of being circumcised was. Which is why he wanted it for his son. He found being uncircumcised to be unsanitary, and other bad things. He had a pretty good grasp of what it was about not being cut that was undesireable.
So you’re saying that my grandfather did a bad thing? (Granted, with “good intentions,” but a bad thing?)
My grandfather was from England, which, I assume, does not routinely perform circumcisions. So, he came from a culture which did not practice circumcision. So, for him to go against his own upbringing and insist that his son get circumcised, it probably means that he’d thought about what it was, what it meant, and he knew it was what he wanted for his son.
In no way do I get the impression that my grandfather was “pressured” into asking for this for his son by the people in his new home, America. He was not influenced, from what I can tell, by the American emphasis on circumcision. I don’t get the impression that he was pressured into it by his American-born wife, either. The notion to have his son circumcised came all from him. He insisted upon it.
If he had some drastic health problems with his foreskin, I assume that his doctors in America (or in England) would have advised him to be circumcised as an adult. But that didn’t happen. I am guessing that it wasn’t malformed, or something along those lines. It was just a big nuisance and he wanted to spare his son all of that.
I am glad that he was able to make that choice. I mean, I’m a female, so I don’t have any opinion either way since I don’t have a penis. But I’m glad that my grandfather was able to use his own judgement and decide that he was allowed to spare his son something annoying, uncomfortable and unsanitary (as my grandfather saw it) by having a procedure done that has a very low percentage chance of complications or risk.
I have no idea how common it was in the Soviet Union for Jews to avoid circumcising their sons. However, it was quite common to bribe officials to list one’s ethnicity as something other than Jewish, or otherwise hide one’s ethnicity/religion. In addition, if one had parents of two diffirent ethnicities, one could choose which to have listed on official papers.
Oddly enough, I haven’t exactly done a statistically valid survey, but I’ve known bunches of Soviet Muslims, and to my knowledge none of them ever felt the need to hide their ethnic identity or whether they were circumcised. Religious practice in general, yes; ethnic identity, no.
Well, this sort of thing does exist - I’m thinking of the lingering existence of Meidung*, also known as ‘the ban’ or ‘shunning’ among certain communities of the Amish. Children are raised in the faith, in the culture, in the community, in the family, until they reach a certain age. At that age, they must choose to stay and participate including all observed rituals and customs, or else to leave, which will also include being considered dead to the community - shunned. That kind of peer pressure must count for many people who choose to stay, because otherwise they would literally lose everything - home, family, support network. But some do leave.
One is a minor physical injury to an infant, and one is a potentially devastating emotional and social injury to a young adult.
Tell me, catsix, if the Jews were to hypothetically abandon the physical circumcision for infants, and consider all children of Jewish blood to be ‘in the family’ until the age of 18 (or 13 at the Bar/Bat Mitzvah), just for example, and if at that time the child was required to choose to accept the circumcision or be effectively shunned…what would your opinion of this be? In your opinion, would that be acceptable, or would it be a version of emotional coersion?
I think we can safely say that one can make a choice with the best of intentions, and still have a bad outcome.
My father was cut at 13 because of an infection, or so the story goes, and this was why he chose infant circumcision for my brothers - he didn’t want them to remember suffering as he had done (though given the years (1963, 1967, 1970) it would possibly have been done as a matter of routine anyway). Do I understand his decision? Absolutely. Do I think he might have taken a wait-and-see attitude, since naturally his sons very well might not have suffered infection problems as he did? Of course he might have. If he were facing the same choice today, I don’t know what his choice would be. He’s older and wiser, but also more stuck in his ways than he was 35+ years ago. It would be an interesting question (but one which I will not be asking him).
Indeed, i will admit that circumcision is certainly towards the more severe end of the scale. As such, i don’t think it’s a decision to be taken lightly, or one to be made without being fully informed.
But i still stand by the statement that it is a decision to be made by the parents, not something that should be forced upon them, and not something that should be denied to them.
The problem here is that both sides have given up listening. The pros continue to say that there may be a medical benefit, and that there are numerous other instances in which the parents get to make decisions for their children, thus setting a precedent. The cons refute any medical benefit, and either denounce or ignore the other examples provided of parental choices.
On the other side, the cons say that the process is mutilation, and unnecessary surgery. They also say that it should not be protected even as a religious practice. The pros write off mutilation as an opinion, refute that it is unnecessary, and say that religious practices are protected.
I can certainly see the argument that it’s an operation done to the child without his consent. And I admit that at first, when i thought about what kind of operations shouldn’t be done to a kid without his consent, the first thing that came to mind was a parent trying to tattoo something obnoxious on their kid.
But if i were to say, based on that idea, that “purely cosmetic operations shouldn’t be done,” i also rule out a good number of cosmetic operations that, if not carried out, could result in the kid getting ostracized severely.
So one could say, “all right, let’s just legalize cosmetic operations that will make the kid look better.” But of course, there’s an obvious problem in this, since as soon as you introduce the word “better” you turn it into an opinion-based evaluation, which inherently has no solution.
So i’m left to conclude that we have to allow all cosmetic operations, because otherwise how are we to determine which ones are ‘acceptable’ and which ones are ‘not acceptable’?
To be honest, there’s no perfect solution to this. Allowing all of them results in people wailing about circumcision being mutilation. Allowing none of them results in a lot of kids going through the first 18 years of their life being ridiculed and ostracized by their peers. I don’t think either of those are particularly great situations. But honestly, i don’t feel comfortable being the absolute arbiter that gets to say which operations are acceptable and which are not, and i don’t feel comfortable giving any other person that power. So even from a cosmetic standpoint, i’d have to side with the pros and say “keep it legal.”
When you add in the fact that there are advantages to having the procedure (easier to clean, lessened risk of some infections – argue all you want about it but the first is a FACT, and the master has presented compelling proof for the second), and the fact that the parents already have the right to terminate the baby’s life without having any reason at all (a position that i also agree with and stand by, cruel as you may think i am for having that opinion), i have serious conflictions about outlawing the practice of circumcision.
I will only briefly touch upon the religious aspect of things, since i don’t feel educated enough about the subject to continue discussing it. Suffice to say, i support the freedom of religion wholeheartedly, despite the fact that i myself am not very religious. The thought process behind this is a long and annoying story about how i went about finding out what my real views on religion were, and i don’t want to subject you to that in this thread.
But i’ve said most of this before, except that i hadn’t presented my thought process. I’d love for catsix to present evidence that she has thought about the arguments from the pro-side, and decided on the basis of logic, reason, or personal belief that she cannot accept them. Because so far, all she’s presented is the same knee-jerk argument over, and over,
and over,
and over,
and over, without any demonstration that she’s willing to think about the arguments that don’t fit with her apparent personal vendetta against parents that might want to choose circumcision.
To be honest catsix i don’t think you’re ‘batshit insane.’ I do think that you’re focusing on one aspect of circumcision and clinging to your own opinion as an argument – an opinion you are of course completely justified in having and expressing, since you have a right to your own opinion. But the right to have an opinion does not mean that others have to accept it as a valid argument.
If you’re determined to be narrow-minded and focus on that one aspect, while ignoring (and lets face it, that’s what passing off clearly valuble arguments as ‘unimportant’ is) all other aspects of (and viewpoints on) the subject, then you’re never going to learn anything about the subject at hand. And that’s really what this message board is all about, right? But if you want to cling to ignorance, well, there’s nothing anybody else can do to change that. Just don’t be surprised when you get summarily ignored and pitied by other posters.
And for the record, it seems to me that catsix fits the profile that the OP (yeah, anyone remember what that was about again?) was complaining about in the first place.
Please, stop obsessing about our dicks. We can handle them. And frequently do.
Well, that can be said with a million things. Vaccinations is something that was brought up here. So what does that prove? That because perhaps, maybe, there’s a slim chance that something bad might happen, so people should never be able choose something for their baby that has a very high percentage of causing no problems, and will (in the view of the parent) be a benefit to the child?